The new Blacklist

Angela McCaskill was the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. She has now worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, and in January 2011 she was named its chief diversity officer. Last year, she helped open a resource center for sexual minorities on campus. But she has now been placed on leave because of pressure from some students and faculty. Her job is on the line.

McCaskill’s sin? She was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition demanding a referendum on a law recognizing gay marriage, which was signed by Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, in March. The referendum will be on the ballot next month, and the vote is expected to be close.

McCaskill’s signature became public when the Washington Blade posted a database online “outing” all those who had signed the petition. Even though her signature indicated only that she wanted the decision on gay marriage to be made by the people and not by the legislature and the governor, her critics declared that it demonstrated “bias.”

Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, announced that he was putting McCaskill on paid leave because “some feel it is inappropriate for an individual serving as chief diversity officer” to have signed such a petition. “I will use the extended time while she is on administrative leave to determine the appropriate next steps,” said Hurwitz, “taking into consideration the duties of this position at the university.” Just last year, Hurwitz had praised McCaskill as “a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes.” But she is apparently not allowed to have private political views

That’s pretty appalling. Her saying this is a matter that should be put to a referendum does not impact her job at all.

One should debate those with opposing views – not try to get them closed down or sacked.

Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after it was revealed that he had donated $1,500 to “Yes on 8.” The festival’s organizer put out a statement saying, “Our organization does not police the personal, religious or political choices of any employee, member or filmmaker.” Behind the scenes, however, many of the festival’s board members pressured Mr. Raddon to resign. “From now on, no one in entertainment will feel safe making a donation as measly as $100 to a conservative defense-of-marriage campaign,” mourned Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center.

Nor is the modern-day blacklist confined to the entertainment industry. Marjorie Christoffersen, manager of the famous Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote, resigned after El Coyote was subjected to a month of boycotts and demonstrations because she had contributed $100 to the campaign against gay marriage. Christoffersen, who had been with El Coyote for 26 years, insisted her stance had nothing to do with prejudice against gays, but rather was rooted in her Mormon faith. That didn’t impress the blacklisters. Fellow employees at El Coyote vouched for her kindness to gay employees, including personally paying for the mother of an employee who had died of AIDS to fly to Los Angeles to attend his funeral. That didn’t matter either. And neither did the fact that El Coyote sent $10,000 to gay groups to “make up” for Ms. Christoffersen’s contribution. The boycott continued, and the slowdown in business forced Ms. Christoffersen to leave.

It’s like boycotting the Mad Butcher because he said some nice things about John Key. Targeting people, and the business they work for, just because they made a donation to a cause you don’t approve of is not healthy.

peterwn

Harriet

Being gay is a religion, they can’t prove it, they have the same fertility rates as the general population and their ‘bits and pieces’ are in good working order to do what they are designed to do:Procreate.

The “I’m gay” screech, “gay marriage” and the ‘gay march’ through the public institutions and the news media is fanaticism.

It is demanded of the government to stay out of bedroom antics, but ‘bedroom antics’ are now at the center of government policy.

Orwellian attempts at speech and thought control have been about for decades and if it was going to be stopped it should have been stopped right at the start. The bottom line is that it is mainly just another means for the left to advance their political agenda. The real tragedy is the so called right have always been right behind it.

Here’s another example of this disgusting but unfortunately widespread practice-

Fox 19 anchor back on the air after suspension for calling Rachel Maddow an ‘angry young man’ on Facebook

Richard29

You don’t have to go overseas for examples of this kind of thing. We’ve had at least one New Zealander fired from his job for taking a position on the gay marriage debate (He criticised the principal for using a school newsletter to take a position on gay marriage and supported students expressing support for marriage equality by wearing coloured wristbands).http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10835530

barry

This subject is starting to become very much like the climate argument – ie: there is more propaganda in the arguement than anything else.

Why is it that the gay community cant accept that some people just dont like them?. And the more they try to force the situation the more they will raise the level of conflict. Its just like the argument about abortion, about religious holidays, about royalty etc, etc. The fact is that some people like the situation just as it is, others want to change it.

There no logic to many of the arguements – its all about “Belief”. And thats pretty much religious.

So the pro-gay lot need to understand that there are a lot of people who simply believe that its wrong. And nothing is going to change that.

OneTrack

Progressives, don’t you just love them. Supposedly all for “diversity” until its a diversity that isn’t the “approved” version. Then its off to the gulag with you.

They don’t seem to go on about democracy and free speech as much as they used to. I guess they finally realised it wasnt a good look because they were the ones generally suppressing speech and coming up with reasons why true democracy needed “adjustments” to achieve the desired result.

Here’s a heartening case otherwise. In the UK, a Housing Manchester manager made some ‘phobe comments outside working hours, for which he was demoted by his employer. Fortunately, his employment tribunal appeal was successful. Moreover, the bloke in question was actually *supported* by Peter Tatchell, the outspoken UK LGBT rights campaigner. Discriminatory workplace conduct should be covered by anti-discrimination laws, but not instances of adverse comment that occur outside working hours.

And need I also remind anyone about Northland’s Pompallier Catholic College and Nigel Studdart, who was sacked for expressing his right to freedom of conscience and speech and supporting marriage equality? It cuts both ways.